Early Armenian Army (Rise of Rome)

[Strategiser]

Dear fellow Commanders,

I am relatively new to FOG system and am currently delving into the Ancients rulebook. I have picked up the Rise of Rome companion for starters and have the following quick question on the Early Armenian Army (pp. 53-55) which I would appreciate if you could clarify for me:

On page 54 under the building a customised army heading, it says that "An inspired commander cannot be used in Tigran the Great's reign." This then implies (the way it is written) that one may choose an inspired commander for a C-in-C for any time period between 331BC-252AD (the listed period for the Early Armenian Army) EXCEPT FOR the 'Tigran the Great's Special Campaign period (i.e. 83BC to 69BC)'. Now, this is rather confusing as, if anything, one should be able to choose Tigran the Great to be an inspired commander (i.e. C-in-C) as that is indeed the time period when the Armenian Early Army had an 'Inspired Commander" per se.

So perhaps the sentence on page 54 should have been reversed - i.e. "An inspired commander can only be used in Tigran the Great's reign."? This would then make sense and is in line with the rules depicted in the 'L'art de la guerre" rulebook.

Or am I missing something here?

Thanks in advance!

[hazelbark]

I think the author's think Tigranes was only "great" in the propaganda sense of the term.

[Strategiser]

I thought about that possibility, but it just doesn't make any sense as the way it is currently written in the companion book means that one can choose to have an Inspired C-in-C for any period apart from Tigran the Great's reign. Now, historically, Armenia was at its peak during Tigran's reign, who was highly praised as a commander. As noted before, this was incorporated correctly in the L'art de la guerre wargame rulebook (quite similar to FOG).

I could understand if the authors had opted to disallow the choice for Inspired Commanders for the entire period, but excluding it just for Tigran's reign is contrary to logic. I think the sentence should be reversed (i.e. Inspired Commander ONLY during Tigran's reign) to reflect the historical accuracy.

[ravenflight]

I tend to agree with you. Given limiting comman ld structure is very rare in the lists (i.e. you can have a pictish great commander, and a Ghurid great commander, and practically any other nation as great commander) I feel you have to have VERY compelling reasons to stop ANYONE from being able to be a great commander!

[gozerius]

Ordonnance Burgundian - Charles the Bold

[ravenflight]

Ordonnance Burgundian - Charles the Bold

... and?

[petedalby]

I think it means what is says. The preamble on page 53 credits Tigran with losing his empire in successive defeats. Hardly the work of an IC.

Charles the Bold gets the same treatment for much the same reason as Gozerius points out.

[Strategiser]

I think it means what is says. The preamble on page 53 credits Tigran with losing his empire in successive defeats. Hardly the work of an IC.

Charles the Bold gets the same treatment for much the same reason as Gozerius points out.

Historically Tigran only started losing right towards the end of his quite long "career" (he lived 85 years - impressive for that time period!), by surrendering not to Lucullus but to Pompey later, but even then managing to retain a part of his lands and becoming a Roman client state. So this "losing" period happened in the mid 70s BC - late (i.e. early) 60s BC. But he ruled from 83 BC and conquered pretty much most of Alexander the Great's middle eastern and hellenic lands in the Asia Minor (including, indeed, part of Parthia). So one can certainly claim him to be an Inspired Commander (especially given that many other much less known commanders can be chosen to be Inspired Commanders in the companion book). This, by the way, also applies to the Early Armenian Army, which, as mentioned before, makes no sense as one could choose any other, in effect, much less known Early Armenian general to be an Inspired Commander (due to the way the companion book is currently written) but not Tigran the Great himself! Hmmm... really makes no sense.

I am personally going to reverse that sentence in the companion book as I frankly think this should be added to the list of errata. So you can ONLY have an Inspired Commander during Tigran's reign.

[philqw78]

I am personally going to reverse that sentence in the companion book as I frankly think this should be added to the list of errata. So you can ONLY have an Inspired Commander during Tigran's reign.

One of the problems, IMO, with the lists is the more the authors (think they) know the worse the list becomes as it is more restricted.

[Strategiser]

I am personally going to reverse that sentence in the companion book as I frankly think this should be added to the list of errata. So you can ONLY have an Inspired Commander during Tigran's reign.

One of the problems, IMO, with the lists is the more the authors (think they) know the worse the list becomes as it is more restricted.

I agree conceptually. However, as I mentioned before, I truly think that in this instance this is an error in the companion book. The reason is: were the authors claiming that Tigran was not an IC (for one reason or another, despite that the historical accounts suggest that he was! - although history is a tricky matter!!), I would accept it as their viewpoint which is fine! However, my problem is that with the current wording, the companion book suggests that you can have an IC for ANY period BUT during Tigran's reign! It is this that makes no sense to me, as after Tigran, the Early Armenian territory was vastly reduced for almost the entire period until 3rd century AD, with no significant generals, certainly not of Tigran's calibre!

If we break the Early Armenian period into two parts (for playability): A. Tigran's reign, and B. The rest; the authors could do the following:

1. No restrictions for the entire period (which seems to be the case with many other "less historically significant" armies); OR
2. Restrictions for the entire period (which I would understand as a viewpoint - see above); OR
3. Quasi-restrictions, which could be either:
3A. Tigran's reign is restricted, OR
3B. The whole period BUT Tigran's reign is restricted.

Now, from all of the options above, 3A (the one written in the companion book) is, I think, the only option that makes no sense at all! That's the reason why I think this is an error and should be added to the errata list.

As I am new to this forum, do the authors/designers provide their feedbacks herein?

[philqw78]

I agree, but the lists are the author opinion. If they thought his old age failures more important than his successful youth, well. But all the others can have an IC because they can't prove they didn't.
The authors used to post much more often, now very rarely

[Strategiser]

Based on your experience with the FOG system, how much would you say changing such minor elements affect the balance of the game? E.g. if I were to reverse that restriction in my games as suggested in my previous messages, do you reckon this will significantly impact the game? In other words, how delicate have the authors been when designing the army lists and their assigned points?

Also, on a different topic, given the substantial amount of errata in all three rulebooks (based on the official errata documents released), is there any plan to reprint/update the rulebooks (more specifically regarding FOG:R and FOG:N as the Ancients have recently been updated)?

Thanks for your help.

[philqw78]

Allowing him to be an IC would not affect the balance of the game in the slightest. He still costs 80 points. Small changes to the core rules do make a big difference though.
I do not think there are any plans to reprint. Slitherine are a software company so aren't too bothered it seems. And the authors seem happy with version 2 of the rules anyway

[philqw78]

Are there any published errata for V2?

[Strategiser]

Great, thank you.

The only errata I have/have seen is the official one from the FOG website.

[ravenflight]

Great, thank you.

The only errata I have/have seen is the official one from the FOG website.

In friendlies... do what you want. It will affect the game as he is now an IC, but it wont affect game balance (Phil is correct, he still costs 80ap, so you're going to have to cut points elsewhere).

In competition games, however, I think it wouldn't be allowed.

One thing though, the lists are v1 lists and usable in v2. In reality (IMHO) this is a cop-out as there ARE differences in game effect and so some combinations are now different and probably should be priced differently. The ability of Generals to only affect limited numbers of BG's when creating battle lines (for example) wasn't thought of by the list writer. They never gave it a second thought... because under v1 this wasn't the case. If it were considered, perhaps they would not have made the decision they had. Unfortunately the decisions made have been made and for conventions we are stuck with things as they stand

[Strategiser]

Thanks, will keep this in mind.

[MDH]

Ordonnance Burgundian - Charles the Bold

I think that makes the point that is pretty unusual in these lists to find any army restricted in this way. Given the very broad timespan of most of the individual lists that makes a certain kind sense I suppose.

However it seems to be a bit of a default option to allow an IC for most armies so makes it questionable in those few cases too. I dare say given time and resource one could delve into many to see if there is any justification for allowing an IC at all in many cases - on the basis that there needs to be positive evidence of outstanding generalship on a consistent basis during the period for the army concerned not just evidence of poor generalship as in Charles the Bold or the absence of evidence in either direction .

Mithradates the Great of Pontus ? An IC hardly And at that time it was quite usual for eastern potentates to execute successful generals as a risk to their thrones - not exactly an encouragement to excel

If one was modelling the second Punic war for example one could find evidence of brilliance and incompetence on both sides, but such things are also a function of what players are supposed to be doing in their deployments and manoeuvres.

Perhaps the better approach might be to give some lists a higher or lower maxima (or points value) for the number of commanders so that affording an IC for some might be harder? In many medieval battles for example I would argue that the commanders often needed to be royalty to be inspiring- there was that old WRG things of there being some kind of relic - maybe the Royal standard? And for warrior and tribal armies like Germans, Gauls and Celts maybe a chance element? You don't know until the day what you've got.

I am not arguing for changes to FoG(AM ) by the way just thinking how one might add some time and region specific variations and wrinkles for friendlies and historical models campaigns and battles.

We have adopted a more mixed and variable approach for FoG(N) ( with "charismatic" an extra quality) so that the same army may have more and better or fewer and worse generals at different times in different theatres eg the British in Spain as opposed to in the Netherlands in 1809 and earlier. The French in 1792-95 as against 1805-07.

But it is far easier over a 23 year period ( and 140 lists) only 200 years ago with a wealth of literature and first hand accounts to make such assessments .

[hazelbark]

Also the practical effect of an inspired commander is to make troops hold up morale.

There is also an effect on terrain selection and who moves first.

The former doesn't make one a more competent officer in strategy or fighting. Just the troops are more likely to hang in longer.
The later is of some sentiment in "picking the battlefield"

But given the terrain system I don't actually think it reflect that too much either. Even moving first, deploying second whatever are milder impacts on whom has the initiative compared to say overall army structure.

On this basis I find the historically saying person X was or was not inspired on any given day is to staple a it of chrome on that could have been handled better. (See MDH comment about FOGN)

[Strategiser]

Thanks and I agree. The available IC options are a bit questionable in my opinion, although I see no reason why one cannot decide to change these when playing friendly games. I prefer the way 'L'art de la guerre' approaches the commander quality issues: where the highest quality option is only available during a famous commander's reign period (if any) - i.e. effectively all other periods within each army cannot have an IC.